<html>
<head>
<style>
P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body
{
FONT-SIZE: 10pt;
FONT-FAMILY:Tahoma
}
</style>
</head>
<body><P >Dear all,</P>
<P > </P>
<P >Congratulations to Karen. I also wish to add my <FONT class="" >congratulations to</FONT> you all as well. Although I had not actively <FONT class="" >participated in <FONT class="" >the discussions, I have been observing them through all your emails. </FONT></FONT></P>
<P ><FONT class="" ><FONT class="" ></FONT></FONT> </P>
<P ><FONT class="" ><FONT class="" >The success of these elections are a tribute to the good will, good faith, humility, <FONT class="" ><FONT class="" >volunteering</FONT><FONT class="" ></FONT></FONT> spirit, and desire to work with others you all showed. This, in my humble opinion, makes Karen's success <FONT class="" >the</FONT> success of all. It is also testimony to how formidable the collective desire to work together can be. I look forward to more of the same and you can always count on my support.</FONT></FONT></P>
<P > </P>
<P >Warmest,</P>
<P > </P>
<P >Khaled <FONT class="">Fattal</FONT></P>
<P >Chairman & <FONT class="" >CEO</FONT>, MINC</P>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #008080 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<HR id=stopSpelling>
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2006 17:12:39 +0100<BR>From: bdelachapelle@gmail.com<BR>To: <A href="mailto:avri@acm.oarg">avri@acm.oarg</A><BR>CC: <BR>Subject: [Mmwg] Electing the second co-chair : a Suggestion<BR><BR>
<DIV>Congrats to Jacqueline. And thanks a lot to Avri for getting us going.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>On what to do next for the selection of a second co-chair, I am OK for endorsing Wolfgang if there is a consensus but would prefer a second round to be set up. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I only identify a potential problem in the latter case. If we are allowed to cast only one vote, there is no guarantee that anyone will get 2/3 of the votes. Votes could be distributed evenly among the three remaining candidates for instance (each one third). Of course we could count on a momentum in favor of the leading candidate (in this case Wolfgang) and be out of trouble, but this is not guaranteed by the mechanism. And we should try to identify mechanisms that automatically produces a predictable result. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I therefore propose the following modality that will guarantee that we have at least one candidate reaching 2/3 of the votes. We just need to maintain the possibility to choose 2 names in the remaining list of 3. As there are only three possibilites to vote (A and B, A and <FONT class="">C</FONT> and B and <FONT class="">C</FONT> if the three candidates are A, B and <FONT class="">C</FONT>), the whole group will necessarily split into three clusters (those voting for A and B, those for A and <FONT class="">C</FONT>, and those for B and <FONT class="">C</FONT>) and two clusters will necessarily represent more than 2/3 of the total together. Hence, if the two groups forming this 2/3 majority together have voted for instance respectively for A-B and B-<FONT class="">C</FONT>, candidate B - and he/she alone - will mathematically enjoy a 2/3 majority. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>The only case where this mechanism would not produce a solution is if :</DIV>
<DIV>- the number of people casting a vote is a multiple of 3 (any non multiple is OK) </DIV>
<DIV>- AND the group has split evenly among the candidates (ie : combinations A-B, A-<FONT class="">C</FONT> and B-<FONT class="">C</FONT> have all gathered 1/3 of the members)</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>In all other cases, the system produces a clear result. And even in the above case, a rule could be established to attribute the seat to the candidate that gathered the most votes in the previous round. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>So, in order to make myself clear, I suggest :</DIV>
<DIV>- that we keep the three candidates</DIV>
<DIV>- that we allow a second round with the possibility to cast two votes</DIV>
<DIV>- that in case the number of people voting is a multiple of 3 and the votes are evenly distributed, Wolfgang (who got the most votes in the first round) is given the seat. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Apart from producing a clear result in all cases I believe this mechanism would be interesting to explore further and I would be very happy if it could be tested here. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>We will be confronted in the near future with many occurences for selecting people as chairs, grooup coordinators or members of various committees. I believe this opens a way to innovate and find modalities that will designate people that can be endorsed by the broadest majority, avoiding the too frequent outcome of traditional majority voting that produces victories with 50,01 % of the votes and a split among constituents ("my candidate won, yours lost" ...). </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I hope this helps. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Do not hesitate to correct me if my calculations are wrong. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Best</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Bertrand</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><BR><BR> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=gmail_quote>On 2/8/06, <B class=gmail_sendername>Avri Doria</B> <<A href="mailto:avri@acm.org">avri@acm.org</A>> wrote:</SPAN>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=gmail_quote style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">Hi,<BR><BR>Ok, I believe that at this point, the election of the co-chairs have<BR>ended.<BR><BR>22 out of 35 people voted. <BR><BR>The results:<BR><BR><BR>David Allen (8 votes) - 36% of those voting<BR>Robert Guerra 18.18% - (8 votes) - 36% of those voting<BR>Wolfgang Kleinwachter (12 votes) 55% of those voting<BR>Jacqueline Morris (16 votes) 73% of those voting <BR><BR>By the requirements in the charter it takes 2/3 (67%) vote to be<BR>elected.<BR><BR>So Jacqueline is definitely elected as one of the two co-chairs.<BR>Congratulations and thanks.<BR><BR>At this point, while Wolfgang has a majority vote, he does not have 67%. <BR><BR>Aand I am not sure what to do. Do we need to have a runoff election,<BR>or is there a chance we can reach consensus. Please let the list<BR>know. In the meantime, Jacqueline is a chair of the group. And if<BR>she (and the groups) wants I will assist her while we are trying to<BR>resolve the co-chair issue.<BR><BR>-------<BR><BR>Obviously, this first experiment at voting leaves some learning to be<BR>done. In addition to not having reached a full 2/3 on the vote for <BR>one of the candidates, I received some other comments.<BR><BR>- Instead of forcing everyone to vote for 2 people perhaps it should<BR>have been set up for up to 2 votes.<BR><BR>- should be using open source facilities instead of a .com commercial <BR>facility. Note I could not find any open source based facility but<BR>would surely prefer to have used such a system.<BR><BR>- people's passwords should have been auto-generated instead of my<BR>sending them out to people. I do assure you all that I did not abuse <BR>my having access to all the passwords. Also, for their to be auto-<BR>generation of passwords, it would have been necessary to give out<BR>people's email addresses, which opens up a spam risk. This should be<BR>discussed further. <BR><BR>- I should have included candidate biographic information for those<BR>who don't know everyone.<BR><BR>- Nomination process should have been clearer and more formalized<BR><BR>These comments are all valid and merit discussion, especially in <BR>terms of any recommendations the Wg might make that include voting<BR>mechanisms for any of the follow-on mechanisms.<BR><BR>thanks to all those who voted and commented.<BR><BR>a.<BR><BR>ex MMWG coordinator<BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR>_______________________________________________<BR>mmwg mailing list<BR><A href="mailto:mmwg@wsis-cs.org">mmwg@wsis-cs.org</A><BR><A href="http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mmwg" target=_blank>http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mmwg </A><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><BR></BLOCKQUOTE><br /><hr />Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! <a href='http://clk.atdmt.com/AVE/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/' target='_new'>MSN Messenger</a></body>
</html>